About your Search

20120930
20121008
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)
," but i don't get it. >> a much stronger reaction from former ge ceo jack welch who tweeted unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. and from florida tea party congressman alan west. he put up i agree with former ge ceo jack welch. chicago-style work involved it. solis responded to the suggestion the numbers were cooked. >> i'm insulted when i hear that, because we have a very professional civil service organization where you have top, top economists that work at the bls. they've been doing these calculations. these are our best trained and best skilled individuals that have been working in the field. it's really ludicrous to hear that kind of statement. >> let's bring in our "news nation" political panel today. john harwood and zachary ca caribel. thank you, gentlemen, for joining me. john, i want to come to you first because i want to play what president obama and governor romney said just a short time ago reacting to the jobs reports. let me play those first, both of them. >> there were fewer new jobs created this month than last
in the latest job report and showing a dip in the unemployment. former chairman jack welch is skeptical. meaning that employers added a modest 114,000 jobs and the drop comes at a critical time for the president who is coming off a weak debate performance with romney. joining us is new york times best selling author out with the latest book. ann coulter. at this point in time the president said we will be at 5.6 and enjoying that part of the economy and a more comfortable position and now they are running with this new number. what is your response. >> it is noticeable that a lot of economist are saying this is not possible. you would need more than 114,000 jobbings. i don't think it matters except to broadcasting tv shows or writing for newspaper what number they throw up on the screen. people know they are out of work and in jobs and they are way overqualified for and working part-time. so many people are going out of business and under working now. 23 million unemployed difference does it make? >> the numbers simply write away the 211,000,000 people stopping to look for people. >> oh, yes. pe
. doug we talked about a tweet from jack welch. did that ignite the controversy? >>reporter: the recovery surrounding friday's release of the unemployment numbers continues to swirl after jack welch, the respected former c.e.o. of g.e. treated "unbelievable jobs numbers. the chicago guys will do anything. can't debate? change numbers." facing criticism if the tweet he stuck by the criticism of the numbers. >> this number is made up of a whole mess of assumptions: who is participating, who is not working, who is trying for work, who has dropped out. it just begs the question. i think there ought to be a good discussion how this number is calculated. >>reporter: most analysts and the obama campaign are dismanage the criticisms as "without evidence." >> we wonder why institutions in this country are, the perception of institutions are failing, because people go on tv and make sufficient h stuff -- make stuff up. >> they had full charge of the first two years and the policies this president put into place actually made it worse, including the fact that obamacare is tale, if you ask employers,
growth in the month surprising to jack welch, former ceo of ge. here is what he said. >> well, and the last two months we have gone from 83-81. now we are going to 7.8% by changing the numbers assumptions. like. i don't know if -- what the right number is. i tell you, these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. gerri: gary, to you first. is the bls giving as ps? >> it is the bs. look. three months ago i said that even if we got newt we would be under 8% because the politics of it. we saw 30 days ago the fed announced a open ended printing of money to get asset prices up, and they say 50 days before election, this one is a joke. if you noticed anything about this number, the estimates of job gains came in the exact amount it was supposed to which should have kept it at 8.2%. the estimates, somehow we got to 7.8%, and the use the most of tiles survey, the household survey. gerri: we will get to that. >> 400,000. gerri: can these numbers be sai's? >> i don't think they can. we have had rumors of bls massaging numbers for the benefit of the
fell to below 8%? also jack welch, the former ge guy. >> yep. >> he's tweeting this morning and saying, unbelievable jobs numbers. these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate, so change numbers. i mean -- so is it possible the labor department is lying or has changed these numbers in some way? >> look, these numbers are often revised. usually when you have a vibrant growing jobs market a revision of 86,000 doesn't make any difference at all. you have much more jobs being created. we don't have that right now. in terms of why the two numbers are different, there are two different surveys the government does. hou household survey where they ask people wheer they're employed and a company survey where they ask companies how many people are employed. those are two different numbers. so that's why you have the number of jobs created or lost and the jobless rate. that's the technical data gathering reason. as for -- look, you'll hear conservatives say either they don't trust these numbers or they're going to say, look, 114,000 is the important number to look at here. that's not good en
numbers so wrong. jack welch went further obviously the former ceo of g.e. and he said unbelievable jobs numbers. the these chicago guys will do anything. can't debate so they change the numbers. set person who suggested something fishy was going on. >> and of course our own lou dobbs has said no the bureau of labor statistics is insulated entity and peter morris is i on our show a short time ago said no, this isn't the case that they would never cook the books for a white house. that's not something they would do. they are economists and statisticians and there might be anomaly in the numbers. here was jack welch yesterday talking to cavuto and he said something smells funny here, listen. >> these numbers don't smell right when you think about where the economy is right now. every economist this morning predicted roughly 90 to 120,000 and 8.2 unemployment came out very favorably just one tenth of a point below when the president took office. >> well, it's funny when people manipulate numbers back and forth on both sides. i always think about the 23 million people who don't have a job an
that were made by jack welch. here is a tweet on that -- host: he is referring to comments made on twitter earlier today by jack welch, who said clear this morning that the unbelievable jobs numbers -- of those chicago guys will do anything, the cannot debate so the change the numbers. that is from jack welch, the former head of general electric. that was on his twitter feed from earlier today. that is reported on a bloomberg and elsewhere. we're waiting for mitt romney who has a rally said in abingdon, virginia. we will take you there when it gets under way. the president making his way to cleveland state university for a rally there this afternoon. we will have that live at 2:30 eastern. that will be live at c-span.org. what you think about the jobs number and the presidential race? caller: it is good, a big deal. the guy from tennessee, he does not know what he is talking about. right now, we have to come together. this is big news. not republican, not a democrat. this is for everybody. i do not understand why they talk obama this, obama that. this is good news for everybody. host: are
and significant decrease in the unemployment rate. jack welch, he went to as far to suggest that the numbers may be manipulated by the obama administration. do you think that the numbers add up? >> i think the suggestion that the numbers was cooked is relatively ridiculous. that being said. economists at the labor department will admit freely that there is a lot of margin of error in these numbers. a month after each job report these numbers are revised upward or downward. the question of the number came out of the household survey, 800,000 plus number, there is a lot of margin for error, possibly as much as 400,000. that is admitted by folks within the labor department, as well. i think you can't get too hung up on the overall numbers because typically these are revised upward or downward. that tends to happen a month later when we stop paying attention. >> heather: what will the numbers do in terms of swaying voters' opinions, specifically undecided voter? do you expect to see a change in the polls as a result of this? >> it's a tough question. i generally think the jobs reports do not move as
his anniversary on the night of the debate. >> peter: and interesting 7.8% number, economists and jack welch, where did this come from, the raw numbers put out and a disconnect. >> clayton: we have to look the at revised numbers a few months later and maybe find out in december what the true number was or were in september. but we have new numbers out of ohio. the all important battle ground state of ohio where president obama has been leading significantly there. in recent polls, well not significantly, but 5 or 4 points accord to go what karl rove was talking about, 49-50%. and looking at virginia, and there mitt romney has pulled ahead of president obama 49-48% within the mar begin of error, but definitely experiencing a debate bounce. and speaking of which, let's talk about the money they have been able to raise because this plays into how people are feeling after the debate as well. in just the 48 hours since the debate, mitt romney has been able to raise 12 million dollars online and just staggering numbers. >> peter: at the same time, the president announced that they raised 181
Search Results 0 to 20 of about 21 (some duplicates have been removed)